Talk:Trikonic

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External references

Answers.com is just copying the Wikipedia entries so using those pages as some sort of independent source is just silly. The internal links are sufficient.--209.7.195.158 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a single researcher posting his research article as a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.177 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

The article provides no inline external, reliable, verifiable sources. I have nothing against the content of the article but it is in effect a form of stub because as it is it leads nowhere. LookingGlass (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion?

I've added the OR tag and inline tags to illustrate obvious places in the article that some of the ways the lack of citations affect the article's credibility. Many inline tags seem appropriate in each case. The article is identical to the page at http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2339422. Searching the Gary Richmond reference, I found only one article. I can't tell how it relates to this wiki article as it's on Springer pay-per-view. In view of the OR aspect of the article, the lack of inline references, and that it may be being used as an authority elsewhere I wonder it should be nominated for deletion. I would like to ask for views on this. LookingGlass (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an amateur researcher of Peirce and, as far as I know, this approach is not cited or used elsewhere in the Peircean research community. There is a tremendous amount of value on Peirce elsewhere in Wikipedia. My view is that this article detracts from that general quality and should be deleted; it only benefits the author who initially posted it. Mkbergman (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkbergman

Thanks for your input. I don't know what the process for deletion would be, and am not sufficiently offended by the article to pursue the issue with any vigour, but I do now feel responsible for it! Any simple advice i.e How do "we" delete the article?

LookingGlass – (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LookingGlass Reasons for deletion: WP:DEL-REASON I think the article foremost fails notability, using the lack of sources as the main justification. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion best describes the proper procedure, for deletion unless the article can be speedy deleted which isn't the case here. I think the content of the article is some individual's OR with low significance, so if proposed for deletion I will support it in its current state (and probably all future states, if I guess correctly), Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]